Scott Brown

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I concur, and I have always felt one good deed begets another good deed, and so on and so forth. This is a measure the American people are clamoring for. We need to reestablish the trust with the American people, and this is the first step in doing that very thing. Once again, I thank the chairman for referencing something I failed to reference as well. I would encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle and my friends on the other side of the aisle to keep all amendments germane. We need to make sure we move for cloture, get cloture, and then have a free, fair, and spirited debate on the issues that concern them but don't get sidetracked to the point where the bill gets killed or pulled. I think that would be a travesty and a mistake. So I am going to encourage my colleagues to make sure if they have a concern, let's air it out and take a full and fair vote on it and move forward. I love hearing the Senator's stories. I am reading his book because of his knowledge and history and the way he can weave things back and forth. That is a very good analogy. I too have concerns. We have referenced many times that there may be forces beyond us who want to make sure this doesn't come out of this Chamber and go next door and then ultimately be signed by the President. I am not one of them. I want to make sure--as the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Maine, and many of the other Members and the cosponsors--that this bill comes out in a good and fair form. We are here for a very specific reason, to address a very specific issue that affects people, quite frankly, in a manner that I never thought was possible. If there are other concerns, I commend the chairman for publicly stating to bring them up in a separate matter on a separate bill and address them if there are issues we have missed. I have a fear--and I hope I am wrong--that by making it, as the Senator from Connecticut referenced, too perfect or too sweet, it could fail, and I don't want to see that. I want to make sure we have a laser-sharp bill that addresses a very specific issue, and if we do it together and work in a true bipartisan manner, we have an opportunity right now in this moment in our history of this country to do something special. I was sent here to do the people's business, and I do it each and every day by working across party lines with good people and good Democrats like the Senator from Connecticut and others. I take that role very seriously. We have an opportunity right now to send a very powerful message for which the American people are yearning. They want us to do well. They want us to be good. They want us to be better than we have been representing ourselves right now. So I am encouraging--just to reference and take it a step further--my colleagues to do the same thing. Let's put our party differences aside. Let's put the inner party differences aside and push this legislation through in a thoughtful, methodical, respectful, and responsible manner that will make the American people say: OK, it is a good first step. What is next, Congress? Are we going to do the postal bill and try to save the postal bill? I hope that is the next issue. We need to work in a truly bipartisan manner. Once again, who is here? It is me, Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator Cochran who are pushing to try to save the post office. That should be the next issue. What is after that? We need to address our fiscal and financial issues so we can come out of this 3- year recession in a lean-and-mean manner so we can be a better country and be able to compete on a global basis. We need to start putting the American people's interests first instead of everybody else's. I usually get in trouble when I go off like this, but I think it is critically important to let the people know that one good deed begets another good deed, and this is the first step in this new calendar year to do just that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate the National Guard on 375 years of service. It was on December 13, 1636, in Massachusetts that our Nation's military heritage was born. It was the members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony who stood together and founded an organization to protect and defend the peoples of the Bay Colony. They provided watch to ensure the security of their fellow settlers in Massachusetts, and they drilled to ensure they were prepared to fight if called upon. From these grassroots origins comes today's National Guard: the most prepared, best equipped, and most mobile National Guard our Nation--or any nation--has ever had. Like the guardsmen of the first days of this Nation, today's guardsmen continue to answer the call to duty. They serve as leaders in our homeland defense response and disaster relief, and over the past 10 years, our guardsmen have served with courage and honor in Iraq and Afghanistan, right alongside our Active-Duty Forces. They are fighting on many fronts overseas and fulfilling many different missions. Sometimes they are coming home with devastating injuries. When they return, these citizen soldiers and airmen face the challenges of recovery, readjustment, and finding jobs. The unemployment rate of today's National Guard remains well above the national average. To ensure that we honor the service of these guardsmen and veterans, I introduced the Hire A Hero Act which gives a tax credit to small businesses that hire veterans and members of the National Guard and Reserves, and I am pleased to say that the legislation has become law. I have also pushed to ensure that all our National Guardsmen receive fair housing allowances. I introduced an amendment included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act that makes certain every guardsman who gets deployed will receive the housing allowance they need and deserve. When a guardsman is ordered to Active Duty for a contingency operation, the housing allowance for that guardsman currently reverts back to his or her home-of-record status rather than the current housing allowance of his or her present duty station, despite any significant loss of income. Basically, guardsmen are being punished financially for being deployed to a war zone. My amendment to this year's National Defense Authorization Act will rectify this inequity. Also included in this year's National Defense Authorization Act is a monumental provision recognizing the significance of today's National Guard. As a 32-year member of the Massachusetts National Guard and a member of the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees, I am proud to have cosponsored the amendment to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is a long overdue measure that gives the National Guard the recognition and respect that it deserves. I am proud to have supported it, and I look forward to its final passage. Today our National Guardsmen continue the tradition of service begun by the militia of 1636, and I want to pay special recognition to the guardsmen of the 26th Yankee Brigade serving overseas and to their families for their service and sacrifice. Massachusetts's own 26th Yankee Brigade is currently serving in Afghanistan. When asked, they answered the call to duty. This summer while I was in Afghanistan, I was fortunate enough to see firsthand the selflessness, courage, and professionalism of ``The Nation's First.'' They are a credit to the State of Massachusetts, the National Guard, and to this Nation. Congratulations to the National Guard for its 375 years of service to this Nation and to all the guardsmen who are prepared to support and defend this great Nation in its times of need.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I have an amendment that has been accepted--almost--sort of kind of accepted--amendment No. 1090, which I would like to discuss briefly. I thank Senators Wyden and Coons for their bipartisan leadership as cosponsors of this amendment. I believe we are going to vote on it shortly, and I ask that it be accepted, either by vote or by unanimous consent. It is a simple amendment that will make sure the National Guardsmen who get deployed will receive the housing allowances they need and deserve. This is a bipartisan amendment. The Defense Department has agreed that the situation needs to be fixed--something that recently was developed. There is a little bit of history behind this, but I don't think it is important because Senator Wyden and Senator Coons and I have taken the lead on this issue, which is critically important to providing the funds that have been taken merely by a change in the regulations. This has happened at a time, quite frankly, when our men and women who are fighting need that money. I am offering this amendment as a result of a bill I introduced last September, entitled the ``National Guard Basic Allowance for Housing Equity Act.'' I introduced this legislation to fix an inequity that hurts National Guardsmen who are deployed. Merely as a result of their deployment, they could lose upward of $1,000 per month in their monthly housing allowance. Basic Allowance for Housing, or BAH, is a benefit paid to members of the military to help offset the cost of local housing markets. When a servicemember is deployed, for example, BAH is necessary to help offset the cost of a mortgage or rent in a particular geographic area. Everyone in the military, especially families, rely on this benefit. This benefit is especially critical when servicemembers deploy because, as we know, the spouse is often at home and she or he is responsible for taking care of the bills. What would my colleagues say if I said that because you are ordered to deploy to Afghanistan, for example, the Department of Defense is going to withhold $1,000 or more from your monthly housing allowance, a huge piece of your total household income--upward of $12,000 or more per year--because of a new policy interpretation? That is right. It is merely a new policy interpretation. Because of a DOD oversight, over 800 Guardsmen--some even in the Presiding Officer's State and 40 in Massachusetts who are deployed to Afghanistan right now--are losing, in the middle of the battle, up to $1,000 per month in their housing allowance because they were ordered to deploy. Title X mandates that full-time Guardsmen, when ordered to Active Duty for a contingency operation, even if there is no break in their active Federal service, must revert back to their home-of-record status rather than their current duty station. Because of this change in status, it alters a guardsman's basic allowance for housing on their monthly pay stub. Basically, guardsmen are being punished for being deployed to a war zone. For example, take a full-time guardsman who is from Worcester. He calls Worcester, MA, home and probably votes there, but he is stationed in Washington, DC, let's say right down the street at the Pentagon. So he or she earns a housing allowance based on the cost of living in DC and, as we all know, it is higher than in Worcester, MA. Sounds pretty normal, pretty straightforward, right? This guardsman is then ordered to Active Duty--to Federal status--for the purpose of deploying overseas. A new housing allowance rate kicks in that is based on his home of record back in Worcester, not where he or she was actually stationed, here in D.C. As a result, the guardsman and his family immediately start losing up to $1,000 per month because of that deployment to serve their country. So full-time guardsmen are entitled to the BAH rate they are receiving at the duty station because it is where they and their dependents live, and that is often where the spouses will reside until that servicemember comes back. Obviously, family members are not going back to Worcester while the guardsman is stationed at the Pentagon or here in D.C. This is not right. It is something DOD agrees with. Senator Wyden and Senator Coons concur, and I appreciate their bipartisanship in moving this forward. I am all about finding savings, but the good thing is that this is no cost to the government. It is already budgeted in the DOD budget. I am not into savings that treat our service men and women unfairly. So my amendment provides a simple, noncontroversial fix. It is germane. It is relevant. It helps people who are serving our country right now. It is bipartisan. It is how we should do things around here. I am glad the DOD has realized this is a problem, and I hope my colleagues will move forward in a manner to make our citizens proud. I wish to thank Senator McCain for his effort in getting this important matter to our guardsmen who are serving presently overseas. It is a testament to his diligence. I thank Chairman Levin for putting up with the problems over the last few days, but it is important to the people. It is not about politics; it is about serving our men and women. Amendment No. 1206

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to protect the families of our men and women in uniform. While these brave members of our community put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms abroad, courts here are using their service against them when making child custody determinations. Although I did not submit my amendment due to concern expressed by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, it is important that the committee take up this issue to ensure that servicemembers have a uniform standard of protection when determining the best interests of their children. Servicemembers risk their lives in support of the contingency operations that keep our Nation safe. The amendment prohibits courts from permanently altering custody orders during a parent's deployment, and requires pre-deployment custody to be reinstated unless that is not in the best interest of the child. This language of my amendment has enjoyed widespread support in the House for the past five years and was recently endorsed by the Department of Defense. Earlier this year Secretary Gates stated that he wanted to work with Congress to pursue the creation of a Federal uniform standard. In his letter of support dated February 15th, 2011, Secretary dates stated: ``I have been giving this matter a lot of thought and believe we should change our position to one where we are willing to consider whether appropriate legislation can be crafted that provides servicemembers with a federal uniform standard of protection.'' Our men and women in uniform sacrifice a great deal to serve our country. We owe it to them to provide uniform legal standards regarding child custody. Servicemembers should never be in the position of having to choose between their country and their family.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Airland, I can say that it is one of the most, if not the most, bipartisan committees in the Senate. As I have said many times before, we are Americans first, and it is fitting that the Senate still works that way when it comes to providing the tools and resources for our men and women serving in uniform. We recently proved it when we passed the tax credit for unemployed veterans, something I was proud to sponsor, and was also proud to be at the White House for the signing ceremony a little over 1 week ago. I am proud of this bill as well, which represents a year's worth of hard work and devotion by Senators Levin and McCain, and all the committee members and their staffs, for their dedication to putting out a topnotch bill. I want to also thank Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Airland Subcommittee, for his committed leadership and effort on behalf of our military and military families. I have been honored to work with him and his staff throughout the year. I believe we have developed thoughtful and informed provisions in our subcommittee mark which will authorize funding for our military's most crucial capabilities and resources. Our decisions were informed by a series of hearings that addressed several critical issues facing our air and ground forces, including force structure, modernization of ground forces, tactical aviation, and specifically the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program. In the end, I believe we achieved our goal of executing the Secretary of Defense's vision to enhance our Nation's capability to fight the wars we are in today and to address scenarios we are most likely to face in the future. We are hedging against other risks and contingencies also. I am also very proud that this bill includes an important provision based on legislation I introduced with Senator Kelly Ayotte last February, which is the No Contracting With the Enemy Act. I had an opportunity to go in a codel to Pakistan-Afghanistan and met with a lot of the leaders over there, then-General Petraeus and others, and had an opportunity to go back as a soldier recently still serving. Speaking with General Allen and a lot of contracting generals, this by far is the most important piece of legislation we can file when it comes to dealing with funding. After speaking with General Petraeus, General Allen, and all the generals in charge of contracting, I was shocked that we are actually unable to sever contracts once we determine, through the new way of paying of cash versus electronic transfers, that we are actually in some instances contracting with the enemy which in turn is using those funds against our soldiers. We have heard many stories of those funds falling into Taliban hands and other insurgents' hands and used against us. And that, quite frankly, is unacceptable. Can you imagine that our own troops would be forced to continue giving money to the enemy because they are unable to terminate a contract? That makes absolutely no sense. So I was very thankful that the committee chairs and ranking members recognized that this is a critical part of the warfighting effort. As you can imagine, others I noted have found it to be unacceptable as well. So I want to thank Senator Ayotte for her leadership. Obviously we can fight this disgusting practice and give our troops the power to void any contracts when it is discovered that the contract benefits enemies of the United States. As General Petraeus stated last year: If money is ammunition, we need to make sure it gets into the right hands. And I couldn't agree with that statement more. The committee had to make some tough decisions in light of the very real fiscal realities we are facing today. It is no secret that our military is already shouldering a burden unlike in years past, not only at home but also abroad. In today's fiscal environment in which it is very tough to get any dollars, our men and women in uniform stood up and stand up and have identified efficiencies and savings, and they should be commended, and so I want to do that right now. I want to say that any consideration of future cuts that place our Nation's military's readiness in jeopardy should receive very serious scrutiny. Lastly, I want to say that when the time comes, I look forward to supporting and debating the amendment offered by the Senators from South Carolina and Vermont, Graham and Leahy, along with almost 70 other Senators who support this amendment. This would give the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a seat at the table of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This could not be more overdue. I think we can all agree that over the past decade the National Guard has experienced momentous change in the way it fights, in the way it trains, and in the way it equips itself, serving alongside their brothers and sisters in arms, and they deserve the same respect with the Joint Chiefs. As a result, the Guard today is much different than the Guard I grew up with when I joined back in 1979. No longer is the Guard considered a strategic reserve used to address limited and unforeseen emergencies. Rather, today's Guard serves alongside its active-duty counterparts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, and many other strategic locations throughout the world. It serves as the tip of the spear for homeland defense response and disaster relief. They are fighting in many areas overseas, and they are coming home with devastating injuries just like everybody else. Their families are going through the trauma just like everybody else. They fought and died in the war on terror, and they represent thousands of American communities across this great country. I look forward to supporting this amendment when it comes forth. That said, now that the bill is before the full Senate, I hope we will have an opportunity to conduct meaningful debate, not shutting off debate, not doing cloture before it is time, but allowing us to work as we did recently when we passed the 3-percent withholding, a bill I sponsored, and also the HIRE a Hero Veterans Act, which I also sponsored. Those passed overwhelmingly without any dissenting votes. I, like my colleagues, have offered several amendments which I feel are relevant to protecting and providing the tools and resources for our men and women who are serving. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to have them considered appropriately. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I first want to thank Senator Tester for his comments. Mr. President, if we pass these two measures today, if we repeal the 3-percent withholding and take steps to help our veterans find work, the American people will win, and for 1 day at least partisanship will lose. Veterans Day is tomorrow. So let's renew our commitment to the men and women who have answered the call of duty and who have fought for us and for our freedom and continue to do so. Our returning heroes face a jobs crisis. We all know it. We hear about it. It is as relevant in Massachusetts as it is in Montana and every other State in this great country. We are here to make a difference today, and that is what this bill will do. This bill will give a much needed boost to the employment of veterans. I earlier filed a hire a hero act, and I am glad it has been incorporated with the President's proposals and is moving forward today. The 3-percent withholding provision is also something I have been working on for many months as well. So I am glad these two bills are coming to fruition. It will give, as I said, a much needed boost to our unemployed heroes, and it will improve our veterans transitioning from military to civilian life. I hope Congress will seize on this momentum and work in a bipartisan manner to pass more jobs legislation. Contrary to what we read and hear from the media, there are things we can all agree on, and these are two good examples. So I say again, if we can do these two things--repeal the 3-percent withholding and help our veterans--maybe it will usher in an era of good will, with one good deed leading to another good deed, and so on, and so on. So let's end this stealth tax and do something meaningful for our veterans. Let's start working together. Above all, let's put Americans first because we are all Americans first. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I just want to remind everyone this is on the 3-percent withholding. I know I have been working on this and others have been working on this for some time. This is part of the President's jobs bill. Who said we can't get together and do something? By working together, we are going to do something the American people want: get rid of the stealth tax that is basically hurting job creation in my State and in other States throughout the country. I wish to thank the leadership on both sides for working through this. I encourage everyone to vote for it. I hope we can have a nice signing ceremony when it is done to show there is truly bipartisan work because one good deed equals another good deed and so on and so forth. Remember, we are Americans first. We need to start doing the things the American people want us to do. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 674. The vote we have tonight is finally an opportunity to pass a truly bipartisan jobs bill, part of the President's jobs package. As I said when we held the first vote to try to repeal the 3-percent withholding tax a couple weeks ago, this vote is a no-brainer. It is pretty simple. Unfortunately, some Members objected to a small portion of that bill, the offset. That should not be a concern this time. The bill we will be voting on shortly just passed the House with 405 votes, and when is the last time we heard that? The bill we are going to vote on today has a new offset that has been endorsed by the President, so I say let's get it done. If we pass it, every company that does business with the government can go back to thinking about hiring new workers rather than worrying about losing 3 percent of the value of their contracts right upfront, right in the beginning. If we pass it, State and local governments will not be saddled with another costly and unfunded mandate. As I said before, it is a no-brainer. If we pass it, we will finally repeal a tax that costs the government billions more to implement than it actually raises in revenue. Let's pass this bill and let's end this stealth tax that is extremely expensive to implement and punishes many for the bad acts of a few. That being said, as we know, we have Veterans Day fast approaching. I thank all of our men and women who have served and continue to serve. I cannot think of anything more meaningful than to come together in a truly bipartisan, bicameral way to help our jobless veterans. Unemployment and homelessness among our Active-Duty veterans and members of the National Guard and Reserves are a national disgrace and we can do better. We should not leave anyone behind. The Active-Duty soldiers and members of the Guard and Reserves fight side by side for our freedom. They face danger together, they are wounded together, and they should be treated as equals when it comes to helping them find jobs. Back in January, I introduced the Hire-a-Hero Act with Senator Kay Hagan. It expands the work opportunity tax credit to help companies put our veterans and members of the Guard and Reserves back to work. The President has proposed a similar action in his jobs bill. It did not include guardsmen and reservists, and that is why I hope when we take up the veterans package that I hear is being discussed, the majority leader will actually allow for that to be included. Our guardsmen and reservists, once again, deserve better. It is time for our Senate colleagues to rally behind the men and women who have served and continue to serve. They are leaving the service and need this opportunity right now. The unemployment rate for veterans is more than 12 percent. For members of the Guard and Reserves, it is twice the national average, as high as 20 percent in some areas. We need to treat this as a truly bipartisan and hopefully bicameral effort. It is something the American people are yearning for. They are looking for us to show leadership, to actually work together. If we can't work together with our heroes who have served and given to our country at its time of need, then I am not quite sure what we will be able to work on together. If we do these two things, repeal the 3-percent withholding and help our veterans in 1 day, potentially 1 week, maybe it will usher in a new era of good will, something I know the Chair and I have worked to establish, as have so many other people in this historic Chamber. One good deed can lead to another good deed and that good deed can lead to another good deed, and so on. Let's start working together. The American people are demanding it. As I have said before, we are Americans first. I may be a Republican-- and I am proud to be Republican--but we are Americans first. I am way more proud to be an American. I hope others in this historic Chamber feel the same way and we can put our party differences aside and do something very important for not only our businesses in this country but also for the ones who have given so much in their service to our great Nation while serving in the military. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise to speak in strong support of a bill we will be voting on, I hope, later today, S. 1726, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011, which has over 30 cosponsors. You are one of them, Madam President, and there are many others. It is based on legislation I have introduced on three separate occasions which currently has almost one-third of the entire Senate cosponsoring it. As I said, I brought it up before, and I am glad it will finally be getting a vote. This is exactly the type of bipartisan jobs bill that the American people are yearning for and that we should be focusing on, and I am glad we are finally able to bring the repeal of this job-killing tax provision to the floor for a serious vote. This is a jobs bill, plain and simple. I don't know how else you can phrase it. Section 3402(t) of the Tax Code will require, beginning in January of 2013, Federal, State and local governments to withhold 3 percent of nearly all contract payments made to private companies, as well as Medicare payments, construction payments, and certain loan payments. This is an arbitrary tax that is extremely expensive to implement and punishes the many for the bad acts of the few. What is more, this tax absolutely promises to kill jobs at a time when we absolutely cannot afford to kill any jobs. The Government Withholding Relief Coalition, a coalition of more than 100 members--I have a sheaf here of 4 pages of groups: American Bankers Association, Americans for Tax Reform, National Association of Manufacturers, wholesalers, National League of Cities, chambers of commerce--4 pages of groups and entities, over 100 members, a cross- section of America. They have estimated that a combined 5-year total cost to the States and the Federal Government in implementing this legislation could be as high as $75 billion. The Department of Defense alone has estimated this provision could cost the DOD around $17 billion. I know Chairman Levin, who spoke before me--we are wrestling with trying to reinstate I think $20 to $25 billion from what the appropriations folks cut. That is real money. Here is the catch: It is estimated to bring in only around $8 billion during that same period. I am not sure about you, Madam President, but you have the cost of approximately $75 billion, the cost to the States and the Federal Government of implementing the legislation, and then the DOD is $17 billion, and yet we are only going to get $8 billion in return? I do not know how else to say it except that only on Capitol Hill does something such as that make sense, where we are spending more than we are actually going to be getting. Unfortunately, there are many other reasons this provision should be repealed as soon as possible. At a time when the State and local governments are under extreme financial stress, why would we want to force another unfunded, costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds for the Federal Treasury? It makes no sense. As I said before, only in Washington does spending $2 in order to recoup $1 make any sense. I am encouraged by many of the cosponsors. As I said, it is a bipartisan group. At what point do you see Senator Franken and Senator Paul on the same bill together and everybody in between as well? I am concerned, as are many others, that businesses that contract with the government will simply pass on the costs of this provision to the government in the form of higher bids on projects. I am also concerned about the effects on small businesses as well. Senator Snowe, the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, on which I serve, and my follow cosponsor on my original bill, recognized early on with me that this provision has destructive consequences for small businesses. Everybody here knows it. At what point do we put politics aside and just agree to pass something that is so simple? This provision makes absolutely no sense. As you know, it will restrict cashflow and discourage small businesses from participating in Federal contracting. Members of the construction industry are equally worried. As you know, that is an industry which has been devastated. They are equally concerned that it will tax away all their anticipated profit on government projects, thus diminishing competition and further raising costs to the government. There is a reason it has been delayed over and over since 2005. Everyone knows it can never go into effect because it will place an extraordinary cost burden on the Federal Government and State and local governments as well. We cannot afford to shoulder that burden right now; everyone agrees. Once again, the 30 cosponsors of the original bill represent a diverse cross-section. The President proposed its delay in his most recent jobs package. I said before, why don't we work on that which we can all agree? Why don't we just take up the measures in a bipartisan, bicameral manner and get them out the door? I understand the House is working on this. We are doing it now. It is a small piece, a small step, but let's get it right out the door. There is no reason we should not be able to do it. Last week, I had an opportunity to speak before the Small Business Committee with Secretary Geithner, who issued the provision's latest delay in May, about the importance of fully repealing this provision. This repeal is one of those rare opportunities we have around here where everyone can be on the same team. It is very similar to when we passed the Arlington Cemetery bill, with your leadership, Madam President. In the midst of all the problems we had last year, the legislative bodies of both branches came together and passed the Arlington Cemetery bill. I look at this as a similar provision where we can actually do something in a bipartisan, bicameral manner and get it passed. I urge my colleagues to rise above partisan politics and support this truly bipartisan legislation. As I said before, we are Americans first. We are Americans first. To me, that means it should not matter whether this is a Republican bill or a Democratic bill. It matters that it is a bill that is going to help small businesses and Americans who are fighting on a daily basis just to make ends meet. We have a great opportunity today to move forward on a piece of jobs legislation and pass this portion of the bill that is, in fact, supported by the President and scheduled, as I said, to be taken up in the House next week. I offer my complete support for the bill and appreciate the leader for bringing it to the floor for a vote. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I rise to speak today as in morning business for about 5 minutes.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, this is a no-brainer. This is where political theater stops and we actually do something the American people want and need. Three percent withholding is good for small businesses. We have viewed this pay-for many other times. It passed one time with 81 votes, another time, I think, 37-plus of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used the same funding we are using to pay for this, but now all of a sudden it is not appropriate. We have six cosponsors on the Democratic side. We need a couple more to make it go forward. The people want us to work together in a bipartisan manner, and this is a way to send that message that we have turned the corner.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the newest members of the American Academy for Arts and Sciences upon their induction on October 1, 2011, in Cambridge, MA. The American Academy, which was founded during the American Revolution by John Adams, John Hancock and other notable scholar- patriots, includes some of the world's most notable scientists, scholars, artists, authors and leaders. Its nonpartisan, independent research has provided us with a significant collection of knowledge in numerous fields of science, humanities, culture and education for more than 200 years. The 231st class of members must therefore be recognized for their distinguished success in their respective fields, as well as their election to an institution of the world's most celebrated leaders. On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 211 new members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, particularly the 28 inductees from Massachusetts. It is an honor and pleasure to recognize their continuing service and intellectual leadership not only in Massachusetts, but also nationally and across the world. I wish the Academy good luck and continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come down to the floor once again to speak to you and the American people. I come to the floor today because there is something that too many people in Washington, DC, are missing right now; that is, we are Americans first. It is a simple idea but one that seems easily forgotten in politics because Washington has a way of making elected officials act like partisans rather than problem solvers. For example, how can any one Member of the Senate be 100 percent right? I just don't know how that happens. How can they also vote 100 percent of the time with their own party? Do they honestly believe their party is right 100 percent of the time or is it easier than going with the alternative--easier than working together with people whom one doesn't agree with on every single issue? I ran for the Senate to make a difference, and I believe the voters of this country sent us here to find ways in which we can all agree, to move our country forward and to make things better. Governing wisely doesn't mean spending all our time politicking--making the other side uncomfortable by voting a certain way or taking uncomfortable votes, putting those votes in the bank for more petty attacks during the election season. But why else would we spend hours and days trying to ram through one-sided bills that can't pass simply to highlight our differences? Is that honestly why we were sent here today? Because there is no Republican bill that is going to pass and there is no Democratic bill that is going to pass. It needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral effort that the President will sign. We face very huge challenges. That means we must rise to the occasion and rise above politics to accomplish the very big things the American people expect from their elected officials. Our jobs and economic picture, as we all know, is bleak. The line of unemployed workers would stretch across America and back again. Our national debt and deficits are spiraling out of control. Working families are getting squeezed by the high cost of energy, high health care costs, high education costs. Businesses are squeezed by high tax rates, burdensome regulations, and uncertainty about the future and the political leadership in this country. Our housing market is frozen, and the government is making it harder and harder, rather than easier, for borrowers to refinance. Yet with all these challenges we have, the answer here in Washington is just more of the same--more threats, more gridlock, more partisanship. I say enough already, because I have said this back home in Massachusetts and people, I think, greatly appreciate the sentiments: We are Americans first. If we don't work together right now--at this moment in time, right now--then we are going to miss a great opportunity. We need to focus on jobs. We need to focus on the economy. That is what I have done since the day I got elected. I believe the American people deserve better. They deserve better than congressional gridlock and political gamesmanship. For example, the President--not you, Mr. President, but the President--has given us a jobs bill that isn't perfect, but it is a start. The majority leader has said the Senate might consider the President's package eventually. Really? Eventually? We are in a financial emergency. We are going to talk about creating jobs eventually? Let's be honest with those who sent us. The current proposal from the President isn't going to pass either Chamber if it relies entirely on tax increases to pay for it. I know it and the Presiding Officer knows it. So when we bring it up, are we going to try to make it better? Are we going to try to pass it? I urge the majority leader to bring the jobs bill--or jobs bills--to the floor that can actually get 60 votes as well as have a chance of passing in the House. What would they look like? They would look like parts of the President's proposal that actually have bipartisan support and can help our fellow Americans immediately. We should take the things everybody agrees on and bring them forward now--right now. We could pass a payroll tax cut for both employers and employees. I stood when he said that. I clapped. I agree with him. We can also pass his version of the Hire A Hero Act that provides tax incentives for employers to hire our heroes who are returning from doing incredible service for our country. It puts them back to work. Their unemployment rate is 25 percent. I am all for it. I clapped again. It is a great idea. We can get to work on reforming our Tax Code in a way that eliminates loopholes and leads to lower rates. We can do these things. It is possible. Those are the things we agree on and we should be doing immediately--not just bringing a bill forward, knowing it is not going to pass and then spotting a particular person or party for an election season that is so far away that if we don't do something right away, we are going to be in deep trouble and miss the opportunity. We are Americans first. We can do it better and we should do it better. I have been a little bit discouraged--it seems to go in ebbs and flows--about the ability to actually have an open amendment process. We had to sign a letter to the President guaranteeing we would actually move forward with the trade agreements. Then we had an open amendment process and, quite frankly, I think when it was done, everybody was satisfied that it was just that--an open amendment process--and we got some good suggestions and sent them off to the President. I am eager for those bills to be passed. We need to allow our Members to offer their own ideas on job creation. There is no one particular person, whether it be the President, the majority leader, the minority leader, or any individual here, who has all the ideas on job creation. Since when? I have a vote, just as each and every one of my colleagues does. I am sure the Presiding Officer has some amendments he thinks would help job growth in his State. I know we have worked on one that was cited by independent groups as being probably the No. 1 way to actually get the economy moving, but we will not even have the opportunity to allow that to be filed as an amendment. Is that right? Of course not. I have a number of bipartisan pieces of legislation, one of which I just referenced with the Presiding Officer, to help boost our economy in Massachusetts. Whether it is working with our fishermen to protect that industry which provides food for American citizens and throughout the world or whether it is the high-tech sector, biofarming--you name it--my bills will help solve, as will the Presiding Officer's and others, some of our economic problems. It will not be done overnight, but it is a first step. There is absolutely no reason we can't move forward to have an open amendment process on a bill that will actually create jobs. But they will make a difference in Massachusetts today, and that is what my constituents sent me here to do. Secondly, we need to focus on our debt and deficits. They are out of control. When I got here, we had an $11.5 trillion national debt. It is now up to $14.5 trillion in a little over 1 year. There is plenty of blame to go around. I hear my colleagues ranting and raving and blaming everybody, but everybody is at fault. Let's acknowledge that and set aside the sniping of whether we should blame this administration or that administration because, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at this point. Everyone has contributed, and now everyone needs to work together to solve these very real problems. I am urging the debt committee to put aside partisanship and remember that we are, once again, Americans first and we have an opportunity right now--right now, in this moment in time--to do it better and to solve these very real problems. We should not get lost in party politics. We should think the way great American leaders have always thought. They didn't waste time scoring points. They took the long view. They thought about leaving a legacy for the next generation and leaving our country in a better place. I know, as the Presiding Officer does, and many others, I have pictures of my children and my family--no grandchildren yet--here in my office in Washington and in my home and in Boston. If we care about the young people in those photos, we should be demanding--absolutely demanding, we should have a lot of the folks who are not in leadership actually get up and demand a bipartisan compromise on the debt, one that finally puts us back on the track toward a balanced budget. As the Presiding Officer knows, because I believe he served with him, before I held this Senate seat, it was held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy and before that it was held by John F. Kennedy. I wish to remind my colleagues that it was President Kennedy who famously said: ``Those to whom much is given, much is expected.'' The voters have given us so much. They have given us so many opportunities to do it better and to be better in solving our country's very real problems. They have given us a responsibility and an opportunity to come here and work and get something done. Every minute we waste, we let them down. With every petty attack, they get more cynical and expect less and less from the people who serve in this great and historic Chamber. While Washington bickers, their faith in our democracy is waning. So I, for one, challenge the majority leader, the minority leader, and all the Members to finally do something for the American people who need our leadership so badly. Let's work together on these big challenges. Let's renew the faith the people of America have bestowed in us and let's remember we are Americans first and we owe it to them to do it better. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Jack Williams of Boston, MA. For the past 30 years, Jack, a well- respected veteran news anchor, has hosted WBZ-TV's ``Wednesday's Child'', the longest-running adoptive-family-recruitment TV feature in the Nation. Since ``Wednesday's Child'' first aired on WBZ in 1981, Jack Williams has used the weekly news segment to tell the story of more than 1,000 special needs children who are in need of loving, safe and permanent homes. Thanks to Jack's effort, many of these children have found ``forever'' homes with viewers of the weekly segment. Jack Williams has used his notoriety and public platform to provide an invaluable service that has changed the lives of so many children and their adoptive parents. ``Wednesday's Child'' is backed by the Endowment for Wednesday's Child, an exemplary nonprofit with very little overhead and no employees. In fact, Jack and Marcie are the sole employees of the Endowment for Wednesday's Child; they have never drawn a salary and run the foundation out of a home office. The Endowment for ``Wednesday's Child'' is supported by individual and corporate donations including Wendy's Restaurants, as well as Volvo, which donates a vehicle for the ``Win a Volvo, Help ``Wednesday's Children'' campaign. The endowment has raised and donated millions to worthy nonprofits that assist with special needs adoptions. Among these are the Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange and group homes including the Walker Home, St. Ann's Home in Methuen and the Italian Home for Children in Jamaica Plain. I also thank WBZ-TV for being exemplary stewards of the public airwaves in allowing Jack to use his position for such a noble cause. On November 6, the Massachusetts Adoption Resource Exchange, other Wednesday's Child beneficiaries and Wednesday's Child ``alumni'' will gather to honor Jack Williams' 30 years of service to Massachusetts' foster children in need of permanent homes. I join them in congratulating Jack and Marcie and all those who support Wednesday's Child for their hard work and generosity.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to Ms. Kip Tiernan of Boston, MA, who died on July 2. Kip was an immense force for good and a towering figure in the fight to better the lives of the less fortunate. Kip Tiernan was, herself, accustomed to loss and struggle and redemption. A child of the Depression, Kip lost both parents by age 11 and was raised by her grandmother who taught her by example the importance of helping those in need. At a time when young women were discouraged from taking a stand or speaking out she was precocious, learning to fly a plane while still a teenager. She led a remarkable life not just in spite of her own struggles but perhaps because of them. Her early years were marked by her own struggle with substance abuse. She spoke openly about the consequences of her drinking and how her recovery from alcoholism helped her to empathize with the women she would help. Kip is best known for founding Rosie's Place in 1974, the Nation's first homeless shelter for women. Rosie's Place is a remarkable institution that has grown from simply providing emergency shelter and a hot meal to assisting women of all ages to put their lives back together. Each year they serve nearly 75,000 meals, hand out tons of groceries, provide thousands of hours of counseling and educational services, help dozens of low-income homeowners to avoid eviction or find permanent housing, and deliver numerous other services to thousands of women. In addition to Rosie's Place, Kip helped found the Boston Food Bank, the Boston Women's Fund, Community Works, Transition House, Aid to Incarcerated Mothers, Food for Free, Finex House, John Leary House, My Sister's Place, the Greater Boston Union of the Homeless, and numerous other organizations dedicated to providing immediate help and longer term assistance to the poor and homeless. It is impossible to measure with any accuracy the impact of Rosie's Place and the many other organizations that Kip helped to found. We will never know just how many women were saved from dangerous streets or abusive relationships. Nor can we estimate how many children and families were spared the depravation and indignity of a life on the streets. We can never be sure how many people who were touched by Kip were inspired to go on to help others. Kip once said: Compassion is a discipline; it's not just a smiley face. She knew that helping on a larger scale required organization. She used her own marketing and PR skills to raise money and awareness for various groups and knew that running increasingly sophisticated operations that served thousands required recruiting other professionals with their own God-given talents. People may disagree about how best to fight poverty or help the neediest among us, but there should be no disagreement that Kip Tiernan transcended the disagreements and politics by committing herself to do the hard work, the sometimes uncomfortable work of demonstrating compassion and helping others one on one. While some volunteer a day or two a year, Kip made it her life's work. Kip Tiernan leaves behind an incredible legacy of service and love. Our city, State, and world are far better places because of her.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 minutes. I don't believe I will need all of that.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to my New England colleague speak. The rightwing rhetoric stuff, though, doesn't work for me when people of good will on both sides of the aisle are trying to solve these problems. We are working on a sense of the Senate here today, and I am rising to speak about my own sense of the Senate. It is an amendment I filed to this bill we are on addressing a key commonsense idea. It is very simple: Don't raise taxes on small businesses, period. But especially don't raise taxes at a time when unemployment is over 9 percent and there is meager job growth throughout the country. Quite frankly, it has stalled out. We can't afford more of the failed economic policies we have been experiencing. Frankly, I can't believe increasing the tax burden on small businesses is even on the radar screen here in Washington. It makes no sense to me. I want to do the opposite. I think we should respond to these terrible unemployment numbers with a progrowth idea such as a payroll tax deduction for businesses that hire workers. Let's do something constructive, something that adds incentives to actually get our economic engine moving again, especially with the businesses that do it best, which are small businesses. The idea we would raise taxes right now on small businesses is the very definition of being out of touch with the people back home who actually work for a living and who create jobs for others. As I travel back to Massachusetts--and I do that virtually every weekend--I meet with constituents, and I think I have had over 230 or 240 meetings since I have been elected. The biggest question I am always faced with is: What is going on in Washington? Why do you guys always throw a wet blanket over us, with overregulation, overtaxation, creating a lack of stability and certainty? It is not something that is making a lot of sense back home. When I hear from small business people back in Massachusetts, they are worried they can't hire more workers. We need to actually create confidence in our small businesses so they will put people back to work. Instead, we are terrifying them with these tax proposals and a lot of the rhetoric they are hearing here today. They do not know what is coming down. They do not know what is next. People up here listening have no clue what is next. What are we in Washington going to do next that will throw that wet blanket on things? Yet we expect them to hire a new employee? It is not going to happen. In particular, there have been recent calls from some on the other side of the aisle to repeal the LIFO--last in, first out--accounting method, and applying it retroactively, without even reducing the corporate tax rate or doing anything to soften the blow on small businesses. That would be disastrous on those who depend on the current system. As the Presiding Officer knows, our corporate tax rate is already the second highest in the world. If Japan lowers theirs, ours will be the highest. And it is often the small local companies that get punished the most. Yet some here in Washington want to tax small businesses more. I don't get it; I am sorry. Despite these many challenges, in the past decade this country has seen the creation of more than 300,000 small businesses--companies with 500 employees or less. These small firms and the founders who started them took risks during a time many large companies had been downsizing. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I hear testimony regularly from many of our business leaders expressing the difficulties of the current environment, and I believe we absolutely need to do everything in our power to protect small businesses from the heavy hand of government--the overregulation, the lack of certainty and stability, the potential overtaxation. In Massachusetts and throughout this great country, small businesses, and especially manufacturers, have been the key to our economic recovery. They are the economic engines in Massachusetts and the rest of the country. They are the lifeblood of our economy. They range from mom-and-pop stores to some of the country's most cutting-edge, high- tech startup companies. How can we tax these job-creating small businesses and then stand on the Senate floor and speak about how awful it is that unemployment is at an all-time high, cloaking it in the language of rhetoric of ``millionaires and billionaires, and corporate jets.'' We all know, even if we do the things we talk about, it doesn't get us close to solving or dealing with the problems. It is outrageous and, quite frankly, the American people can see right through it. We should be doing better. So I filed the amendment today to say that I, for one, will not support more burdens on small businesses. They already face enough problems and challenges. The current unemployment numbers that we are all seeing from States across the country should serve as a wake-up call that people are still hurting. They need some relief. They want to do their best, but they are being stifled. That wet blanket is hurting them and stopping them from creating jobs. It should be our No. 1 priority, and I hope it will get the attention and support of every one of my colleagues. If you care about the survival of your State's small businesses, stop proposing increasing the taxes, increasing regulatory burdens, creating that wet blanket and killing off the incentive to actually go out and hire. Mr. President, I thank you for your courtesy in the beginning, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise to speak about overregulation--something that is really putting a wet blanket on many businesses throughout our country, and especially in Massachusetts. That is why I am introducing a bill to reform the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's--or NOAA's--asset forfeiture fund. The fund, as you may know, is authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act and allows NOAA to retain fines and penalties collected as a result of enforcement actions for legitimate enforcement purposes. As the Department of Commerce inspector general's excellent work revealed, NOAA has mismanaged that fund for many years, wasting taxpayer funds on exorbitant foreign travel and unauthorized purchases of vehicles. As a matter of fact, they purchase more vehicles than they actually have employees. So that speaks for itself. They also purchased a $300,000 luxury boat with the funds collected in that forfeiture fund. The reason I am standing on the floor of the Senate today is because the way the fund has been implemented has actually corrupted the relationship between the fishermen and the regulators. Fishermen have complained for years about the arbitrary fines, overzealous enforcement, and violations of their due process rights when it comes to dealing with NOAA. After decades of such complaints, mostly in the Northeast, the Department of Commerce appointed a distinguished retired judge to serve as a special master and investigate enforcement actions and abuses by NOAA. In one case, a New Bedford, MA, fisherman lost his livelihood and a farm that had been in the family since the 1640s. He was forced to sell due to punitive NOAA penalties. Incredibly, the Commerce Department's own special master concluded that the perverse incentive to fill the asset forfeiture fund with funds was a motivating factor in how NOAA handled that case. Larry Yacubian got not only a check but an apology from Washington because of those abuses, but he will never get his home back. That is why in my role as ranking member of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, I, along with my dear friend, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, held a field hearing in Boston on June 20 to identify a lot of these longstanding problems and identify the problems with the asset forfeiture fund itself. Unfortunately, the hearing revealed that while NOAA has instituted some reforms to its management of the asset forfeiture fund, including auditing the funds for the first time in nearly four decades, it still intends to utilize the seized assets of fishermen to pay for foreign travel, which is inappropriate. The years of NOAA's mismanagement and abuse of the asset forfeiture fund have bred mistrust among fishermen and Federal officials, and it can only be broken by removing the fund from NOAA. It is for these reasons that today I am introducing the Asset Forfeiture Responsibility Act of 2011, which will hopefully end this sad chapter in Federal financial management by this agency by replacing the existing funds with a new fisheries investment fund. Funds will be kept--like most every other fund--at the Treasury Department for the benefit of regional councils and NOAA, and the fund will be audited for the next 3 years to make sure they are getting their act together. The fishing investment fund will direct monies from those fishermen who break the rules toward assisting fishermen with the ever-growing costs of regulatory compliance and to reimburse the legal fees incurred by fishermen whose fines were remitted by the recommendation of the Special Master. Currently, appropriated funds assist fishermen with the costs of compliance, but in these difficult fiscal times this funding is actually at risk. This legislation would provide a more reliable source of funds to offset the increasing cost of compliance, while allowing the fishing councils the flexibility to address other priorities, such as preparing fishing impact statements and addressing other priorities to rebuild or maintain the fishery and the fishing stocks. As I have always said, since I was elected and got involved in this issue, all the fishermen want is to have a level playing field and an assurance that those who break the rules will be caught and they will be fined appropriately. That is why I have maintained funding for NOAA's legitimate law enforcement responsibilities. However, in the end, we should be focused, quite frankly, in this Chamber on bettering the economic security and ability of the American people to make an honest living. This bill will bring back jobs to the hard-working men and women of the American fishing industry while restoring their trust in government. It is the right thing to do.